When has a union created a job?

[Jackson]

Union Jobs Clearinghouse

Excellent, Syrenn! I would have loved to see those salaries they are offering, too! Think of the poor chum,ps paying those dues for those jobs and the people that can't work without paying that payment without their permission.

 

[syrenn]

Union Jobs Clearinghouse

Excellent, Syrenn! I would have loved to see those salaries they are offering, too! Think of the poor chum,ps paying those dues for those jobs and the people that can't work without paying that payment without their permission.

You are very welcome.


ya cant make this shit up. The only thing the unions cares about is collecting dues..... so they can pay themselves off.

 

[Dragon]

Your hypothetical was rediculous....for when I say "can dictate their salary", I obviously mean within reason.

The hypothetical was ridiculous but so is saying that the best workers can dictate their salary. If they could, that hypothetical WOULDN'T have been ridiculous, which was the point.

You say "what about the less loyal and dedicated and talented"....

I say...become more loyal, dedicated and talented and you will reap the rewards.

The point is that "the most loyal, dedicated and talented" is a relative value rather than an absolute one. The best are not merely loyal, dedicated, and talented, they are MORE so than others. It's like all other self-improvement advice out there: it only works if most people don't follow it, so that in improving yourself you are not just making yourself better than you used to be, but also making yourself better than the other guy.

If all workers were as loyal, dedicated and talented as the best ones you have now, you would simply appreciate that level of loyalty, dedication and talent less -- it would become the new baseline for you, normal and taken for granted -- and the best would be those better still.

I had laid out over 13K a week in slaaries for him......He stiffed me for nearly 100K...and that does NOT include the profit...that was what I laid out.

Yes, his "stuff" is in the hands of the marshall and I will get something back after the auction......but my attorney told me to expect a loss of over 70K.

Should those employees share that loss with me?

They will. They all got laid off from the contract. In fact, everyone involved here loses. The company that stiffed you isn't doing well, either.

By the way, I feel for you. I've gotten stiffed before, too, but never to anything like that amount of money. Gawd!

 

[noose4]

I ask again..

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because they both do better under a collectively bargained contract than they would do with an individually negotiated one., and it is a myth that within a union the better worker can not advance, the trade unions have different levels workers must work at and achieve.

No, the talented worker will do worse, the stumble-bum will do better. They will equal out. Which is why union representation in private industries has been declining for 50 years.

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

 

[noose4]

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because the alternative is to let both Joe and Tom be exploited and paid less than they should be. Because, as much as you might like to think differently, the interests of employers and of workers are not conjoined -- they are naturally opposed.

Personally, I think union rules could benefit from recognizing superior performance. I think the fear that this will empower the boss to divide workers against each other, while not entirely unwarranted, can be gotten around. But the solution to this lies in reforming the union, not in destroying it.

And as I said earlier...the first step is to eliminate collective bargaining.

VBut I gotta tell you.....and dont take this as an insult for I find you quite intelligent...

But there is NO WAY yoiu own a business. I do. And I service business owners...and business owners do not think the way you say they think.

Business owners are always wrapped up in KEEPING their most loyal , talented and productive workers....perhaps from a greed standpoiint...but that is their "bread and butter",,,

And thus why one with a great work ethic can dicate his salary and his stavbbility.

And as I said...I see it and experience it in negotiations everyday.

Just had one today die on me. The guy got TOO greedy...he got a 15% increase on his existing salary....but inisted on a 20% sign on bonus......I got the employer to agree to the sign on bonus 6 months in assumingt target initiatives were met.....the candidate inisted on it immeidtaely...implying that he did not think he can meet the goals...and he lost.

What has been going on in this nation shows counter to that, there is no loyalty to the good skilled worker, many a great IT worker has been replaced by cheaper labor immigrants from India.

 

[noose4]

What is funny is how some people have no problem with big business throwing money at anti labor politicians and political activity but have a fit when unions fight back by donating to pro union politicians, as a union member I am glad my union fights against the anti labor politicians this way, I like being part of the middle class.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's it right there. You nailed it. That is exactly right. There is a market for any skill and level within that skill set. Offer too little you will never hire anyone. Offer too much and you wont have money for anything else.
Except unions circumvent that mechanism. Unions say you must hire these people on those terms. There is no real negotiation. Thus they drive up labor costs beyond what the market suggests they ought to be.

The fallacy here is to suppose that "the market" is fixed, or has a natural range. It has a range, and it is out of the control of any one business, but it is NOT fixed. Consider.

Suppose you were running one of the two big railroad companies constructing the transcontinental railroad back in the 19th century. Now, first hypothetical, suppose the government does what it actually did: encourage lots of immigrants to come into the country from Europe and China so that there's a glut of unskilled but healthy labor that can be trained to work on railroad-building.

Second hypothetical: suppose the government doesn't do this but rather locks the borders tight and only lets a trickle of immigrants in, so you have to hire mostly U.S. citizens.

Do you think the market price for railroad labor would maybe be a bit higher under the second scenario than under the first?

That's just one example. There are many things that can be done to affect the parameters of the labor market. Most of those are in the purview of the government (labor, trade, tax, and immigration policy mostly), but some are in the purview of workers themselves, and of those forming a union is the one single most important thing they can do.

There are four statements quoted above which are untrue. They are:

"Offer too much and you wont have money for anything else." No, and that's not what I said. Offer too much and you will suffer a competitive disadvantage. You won't have AS MUCH money left for other things as your competitors do. That doesn't mean you'll have no money.

"Except unions circumvent that mechanism." No, they don't. They just change the balance of negotiating power between capital and labor, which drives all of the parameters higher. It will still be true that you can't offer too much or too little, but both of these values are increased, just as they would be in a condition of labor shortage.

"There is no real negotiation." Sure there is. Unions can't ask for the moon, or for anything that would render the business unprofitable. A business will only generate so much revenue, and it has to show a profit. When a union demands more than the business can reasonably pay, given the conditions of the market for its goods and other real-world factors, the owners are in a good position to say no. This happens all the time.

"Thus they drive up labor costs beyond what the market suggests they ought to be." No, they don't. They just drive up labor costs beyond what the market would be in the absence of a union. But there is no fixed value to "what the market suggests they ought to be." The labor market, like all markets, operates within the parameters set by conditions of supply, demand, and bargaining power. The only way that ever changes is if either the government or a monopoly determines wages by fiat.

OK, so we agree that unions drive up labor costs. All the failed businesses in the steel, coal mining, railroad, and auto industries are testament that wages were too high and the company was not competitive as a result.
You have proven my point beyond what I could have proven.

 

[Jackson]

Because they both do better under a collectively bargained contract than they would do with an individually negotiated one., and it is a myth that within a union the better worker can not advance, the trade unions have different levels workers must work at and achieve.

No, the talented worker will do worse, the stumble-bum will do better. They will equal out. Which is why union representation in private industries has been declining for 50 years.

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

You forgot to mention that those salaries and benefits are at the expense of more employees.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because they both do better under a collectively bargained contract than they would do with an individually negotiated one., and it is a myth that within a union the better worker can not advance, the trade unions have different levels workers must work at and achieve.

No, the talented worker will do worse, the stumble-bum will do better. They will equal out. Which is why union representation in private industries has been declining for 50 years.

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

No, the employer is competing with other employers for the talented worker. He can get top dollar. He doesn't need "strength in numbers" because he has strength of performance.
The stumble bum needs the union because he can't make it on his own performance. That's why union membership has fallen among skilled trades.
The middle class has not been declining for 50 years. The middle class is better off today than they were 4 years ago.

 

[Dragon]

OK, so we agree that unions drive up labor costs. All the failed businesses in the steel, coal mining, railroad, and auto industries are testament that wages were too high and the company was not competitive as a result.

No. Take a look at prevailing wages in countries to which manufacturing labor is outsourced. Compare those wages to NON-UNION wages. It becomes obvious that the difference between union and nonunion wages is, for this question, trivial. As long as outsourcing is encouraged by the government through free trade agreements and tax breaks, it will happen, union or no union.

 

[Dragon]

You forgot to mention that those salaries and benefits are at the expense of more employees.

That's probably because there's absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Sure they do. In fact, negotiations between single employees and their employers are what aren't free. Free negotiations are only possible between equals. Between an employer and a single employee, the negotiations are similar to what goes on between a robber with a gun and an unarmed man.

The reason why the comparison doesn't work is because a consultant is in a much different, and better, bargaining position w/r/t a company than someone looking for a job. A consultant does something analogous to what I do for a living, not what a factory worker does. He is in a better bargaining position because each customer is not an employer, but merely a customer: getting that contract is beneficial, but not getting it doesn't mean doom. Since he's better positioned to walk away from the deal, the consultant is able to argue for a better shake.

I ask again..

Joe has a great work ethic.
Tom has found that line of what is the least acceptable work ethic.

Why is it ok for them to be treated as equals when negotiating compensation?

Because they both do better under a collectively bargained contract than they would do with an individually negotiated one., and it is a myth that within a union the better worker can not advance, the trade unions have different levels workers must work at and achieve.

Shouldn't bargaining for one's salary be based upon how valueable they are to the company? Such as solving a problem that has resulted in saving a corporation $10,000, would be more valuable than someone who does only what his job requires and puts forth no real effort. Why should both these individuals be treated the same in the manner of income? That's the problem with unions, you have workers that receive the same high wages yet their work ethics are not the same. Would it not benefit that employer more, to pay a higher wage that's reflective of those "valueable" employees who are seeking ways in making that business more profitable?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so we agree that unions drive up labor costs. All the failed businesses in the steel, coal mining, railroad, and auto industries are testament that wages were too high and the company was not competitive as a result.

No. Take a look at prevailing wages in countries to which manufacturing labor is outsourced. Compare those wages to NON-UNION wages. It becomes obvious that the difference between union and nonunion wages is, for this question, trivial. As long as outsourcing is encouraged by the government through free trade agreements and tax breaks, it will happen, union or no union.

So if you maintain that union jobs and non union jobs pay the same, then you have made the case there is no need for unions. Especially factoring union dues in.
Yet you have neglected to mention all the jobs lost because of unions. With high labor costs, subsituting capital makes more sense. So more work is automated. This is the origin of the term "union featherbedding" and unions fought automation tooth and nail.
Outsourcing occurs because unit labor costs are high. Note the term unit labor costs. But outsourcing would take place regardless. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[noose4]

No, the talented worker will do worse, the stumble-bum will do better. They will equal out. Which is why union representation in private industries has been declining for 50 years.

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

You forgot to mention that those salaries and benefits are at the expense of more employees.

Nope, companies will hire as many workers as is necessary to get the job done.

 

[naturegirl]

Typical Union journeyman makes $35.00 per hour, apprentice makes $20.00 an hour. Times are tough, company is losing money. Company can lay off apprentice for lack of work, or he can cut journeyman's hours so he can continue to pay apprentice. Journeyman says no way, lay off apprentice, I'm not taking a cut in pay, lay him off. Now who does the work of the apprentice??

Ok, I'm quoting myself...............Gaaaaahhhhh!!! Can anyone answer this for me???

 

[noose4]

OK, so we agree that unions drive up labor costs. All the failed businesses in the steel, coal mining, railroad, and auto industries are testament that wages were too high and the company was not competitive as a result.

No. Take a look at prevailing wages in countries to which manufacturing labor is outsourced. Compare those wages to NON-UNION wages. It becomes obvious that the difference between union and nonunion wages is, for this question, trivial. As long as outsourcing is encouraged by the government through free trade agreements and tax breaks, it will happen, union or no union.

So if you maintain that union jobs and non union jobs pay the same, then you have made the case there is no need for unions. Especially factoring union dues in.
Yet you have neglected to mention all the jobs lost because of unions. With high labor costs, subsituting capital makes more sense. So more work is automated. This is the origin of the term "union featherbedding" and unions fought automation tooth and nail.
Outsourcing occurs because unit labor costs are high. Note the term unit labor costs. But outsourcing would take place regardless. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

That case was not made by me, workers tend to get more in pay and benefits through collective bargaining(union) than they would negotiating wages and benefits by themselves.

Out sourcing goes on in both union and non union companies, American workers will not work for the slave wages these companies pay in third world nations.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope, strength in numbers produces a better contract than a single non skilled negotiator negotiating against a skilled negotiator for wages and benefits. Alone the better worker might get $10 an hour while lesser worker gets $7 but through collective bargaining they both walk away with $15 an hour plus benefits.

the decline of union representation in private industry is why the middle/working class has been declining the past 50 years.

You forgot to mention that those salaries and benefits are at the expense of more employees.

Nope, companies will hire as many workers as is necessary to get the job done.

No. They will pay overtime. They will outsource production. They will cut the amount they produce and raise prices. There are many strategies to deal with higher labor costs.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Take a look at prevailing wages in countries to which manufacturing labor is outsourced. Compare those wages to NON-UNION wages. It becomes obvious that the difference between union and nonunion wages is, for this question, trivial. As long as outsourcing is encouraged by the government through free trade agreements and tax breaks, it will happen, union or no union.

So if you maintain that union jobs and non union jobs pay the same, then you have made the case there is no need for unions. Especially factoring union dues in.
Yet you have neglected to mention all the jobs lost because of unions. With high labor costs, subsituting capital makes more sense. So more work is automated. This is the origin of the term "union featherbedding" and unions fought automation tooth and nail.
Outsourcing occurs because unit labor costs are high. Note the term unit labor costs. But outsourcing would take place regardless. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

That case was not made by me, workers tend to get more in pay and benefits through collective bargaining(union) than they would negotiating wages and benefits by themselves.
.

Only in the aggregate and only in the short term. An individual worker who is talented will make more on his own, negotiating his own compensation.
In the long term the company will adjust to higher labor costs by cutting back production and moving it elsewhere. Ask all those UAW workers in Detroit who have been unemployed for 10 years.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Typical Union journeyman makes $35.00 per hour, apprentice makes $20.00 an hour. Times are tough, company is losing money. Company can lay off apprentice for lack of work, or he can cut journeyman's hours so he can continue to pay apprentice. Journeyman says no way, lay off apprentice, I'm not taking a cut in pay, lay him off. Now who does the work of the apprentice??

Ok, I'm quoting myself...............Gaaaaahhhhh!!! Can anyone answer this for me???

Actually the Union Journeymen would be reduced in that case to a ratio of 1 Journeyman with every 3 or 4 Apprentices to save on cost. All the Union Employer would have to do is replace that Journeyman with an 5th year apprentice who is capable at handling the same tasks but for less pay. You will always find twice as many Journeymen unemployed in any bad economy where companies are fighting for work.

 

[noose4]

You forgot to mention that those salaries and benefits are at the expense of more employees.

Nope, companies will hire as many workers as is necessary to get the job done.

No. They will pay overtime. They will outsource production. They will cut the amount they produce and raise prices. There are many strategies to deal with higher labor costs.

And such applies to both union and non union workforces.